A report emphasized in Darwinist publications of late has entered the mainstream agenda. One part of an artificially manufactured DNA molecule was transferred to the nucleus of another cell and this DNA was observed to function within the cell. This subject, carried under misleading captions such as “synthetic genome brings new life to bacterium” and “creation of a bacterial cell” (surely Allah is beyond that) in various Darwinist publications has been made the tool of Darwinist speculation. Certain publications such as the Financial Times have even claimed that evolutionists have realized their endless dreams regarding creating life out of nothing. The fact is that the research in question represents no reply to the question of how life began, which Darwinists can never answer. On the contrary, this study is significant proof of the complexity of the DNA in the cell.
Clarifications on the subject are as follows:
After artificially synthesizing one Mycoplasma genitalium (Mycoplasma mycoides) in the laboratory, the American scientist J. Craig Venter then installed it in the cell nucleus of another mycoplasma, and the cell continued functioning with this DNA.
The procedures carried out are no different to the techniques known as cloning.
A copy taken from the DNA of Mycoplasma mycoides, consisting of 1.08 million base sequences, was arranged under laboratory conditions and transferred into the cell of another living thing.
No new DNA was manufactured, no information that did not exist before was produced, and no artificial DNA sequence was manufactured from nothing in the laboratory. DNA already exists in the cell. The procedure carried out is nothing more than existing DNA with its extraordinary information being taken and re-arranged and transplanted into another cell.
The re-engineering in question was carried out under the control of conscious scientists aware of the extraordinary complexity of the information in DNA, in the most advanced laboratories and under controlled conditions, using an existing specimen that Allah had created from nothing, and experimenting for many years.
This cloning procedure performed on a single bacterium could only be performed as the result of longer than 10-year research costing $40 million, by a core team of 20 scientists, with thousands of others in the background.
This effort made by scientists in order for a single pre-existing specimen to be transferred by conscious individuals in a conscious environment revealed that not even one copy of the complex structure in question could be manufactured without an existing specimen, without conscious intervention and without technical equipment.
The development in question is an excellent one in the name of science. As genome research progresses, it will be possible to copy DNA from living cells and transplant these into other cells. By Allah’s leave, this research will be used in many beneficial ways, such as curing various diseases. But all these things are conscious intervention in existing structures. To portray these conscious and controlled experiments performed on already existing structures as evidence for evolution is not only deceptive, but also an indication of Darwinists’ despair. It is feeble speculation used by Darwinists unable to explain the beginning and complexity of life.
If Darwinists wish to prove their claims, then they must BE ABLE TO PRODUCE the components of life FROM NOTHING. After that, they have to explain how this might have come about as the result of blind chance, in an uncontrolled environment exceedingly dangerous to life, in the absence of any conscious intervention. The fact is that Darwinists are unable to produce EVEN A SINGLE PROTEIN under controlled conditions and as a result of conscious intervention. And it is impossible for them ever to do so.
By this research, Darwinist scientists have once again proved, by their own hand, the complexity of life and that not even the smallest component of life can come into being by chance.
It needs to be made clear that this result DOES NOT EQUATE TO LIFE. The living cell is a whole consisting of countless complex components, and only forms when all of these are present at the same time and place and combine to produce a complex organization. The transplanting of a single extraordinarily complex DNA is nothing more than replicating a very small part of an already existing system. Darwinists rejoicing at the existence of DNA obtained by copying are a far cry from accounting for the first living thing, in other words living cell, they imagine, and there are insuperable obstacles to their doing so.
Moreover, and most important of all, the research in question HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN. The study does not eliminate the dead-end that Darwinists are in regarding the origin of life. This profound dead-end, that effectively demolishes Darwinism, is growing still worse and leading Darwinism to a state of total collapse.
Jim Collins, professor of biomedical engineering from the University of Boston, opposed the speculation about the cloning research in question in Nature magazine, saying:
“The work reported by Venter and his colleagues is an important advance in our ability to re-engineer organisms; it does not represent the making of new life from scratch.” [1]
Conclusion: One feature of Darwinists is that they include their efforts to reproduce structures exhibiting the glory of Creation in the whole Darwinist furore, using all the Darwinist publications at their disposal and very large capital letters. Darwinist furore has recently begun being extensively used in this time when science has been shown to refute the theory of evolution. This means that Darwinists are in a terrible bottleneck. For the theory of evolution, which tries to explain life in very simple terms, the building blocks of life must also be equally simple. So much so that everything about life must agree with these false and facile claims made by Darwinists who account for everything in terms of chance. Therefore, if the Darwinist claim were true, the imaginary first cell they maintain formed in muddy water should be nothing else than the water-filled balloon postulated by Darwin. But the truth is very different. Even just one of the proteins that make up life has an exceedingly complex structure. Darwinist scientists across the world have been striving for the same thing for 150 years, and have failed utterly: TO BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE A SINGLE PROTEIN. For that reason, depicting the cloning of DNA as evidence for evolution and the helpless writhing of Darwinists wishing to continue with their furore do not alter an important truth, and they deceive nobody. That important truth is the extraordinary complexity of life. The scale of the effort needed to understand one single part of that complex life or to obtain a copy of it makes that clear. The fact is that as these people try to understand a single DNA over tens of years in the laboratory, the glorious DNA molecules in each of the 100 trillion cells in their bodies keep on performing the tasks inspired in them in an extraordinary system and regularity. Because their Creator is Allah. Allah created them from nothing. Almighty Allah is the Lord of all things, the Creator of the earth and sky. Every single day, science will continue to provide new evidence that praises the glory of our Lord. Every new scientific discovery will continue to provide evidence of this majestic Creation. Almighty Allah says in one verse: Yes, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Allah. Yes, Allah’s promise is true but most of them do not know it. (Surah Yunus, 55)
Will you please stop calling people "Darwinists"? You make it sound like they worship him or something. And evolution has nothing to do with how life began anymore than mathematics has to do with where numbers originally came from. It's just about what has happened with life now that it does exist.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
Will you please stop calling people "Darwinists"? You make it sound like they worship him or something. And evolution has nothing to do with how life began anymore than mathematics has to do with where numbers originally came from. It's just about what has happened with life now that it does exist.
When you take evolution back to a single celled organism you are dealing with the origins of life. Some Darwinists choose a starting point that is convenient so they can beg the question-- but there is no avoiding abiogenesis and panspermia when talking that brand of 'evolution' People use Darwinism for the specific reason that it relates to speciation. Since the modern day definition includes both micro and macro-evolution.
Everybody worships something.. it is inherent in our nature..
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
yes, i think panspermia befits these "darwinists."
to the op, nice post.
Help me to escape from this existence
I yearn for an answer... can you help me?
I'm drowning in a sea of abused visions and shattered dreams
In somnolent illusion... I'm paralyzed
When you take evolution back to a single celled organism you are dealing with the origins of life. Some Darwinists choose a starting point that is convenient so they can beg the question-- but there is no avoiding abiogenesis and panspermia when talking that brand of 'evolution' People use Darwinism for the specific reason that it relates to speciation. Since the modern day definition includes both micro and macro-evolution.
Everybody worships something.. it is inherent in our nature..
Everybody worships something...So, what, do these folks worship Charles Darwin? Or shall I say his zombie, given how long the man's been dead? They're zombie Darwin worshipers?
You know, that might be a good name for a rock band.
What point are you trying to make by your statement, "Everybody worships something...it is inherent in our nature..." ? I would like to know.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
Everybody worships something...So, what, do these folks worship Charles Darwin? Or shall I say his zombie, given how long the man's been dead? They're zombie Darwin worshipers?
You know, that might be a good name for a rock band.
What point are you trying to make by your statement, "Everybody worships something...it is inherent in our nature..." ? I would like to know.
those were two separate statements hence the space in between. I have already elucidated prior why they are called 'Darwinists' specifically as it has to do with 200 year old theories that are rigid and haven't adapted to fit modern scientific trends.. Still along the lines that believe black men are an intermediary species between Ape and fully evolved white men. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...rs-394898.html
that sort of thing.. well you get the picture..
as to what those folks worship-- I don't know who 'those folks' you are referring to are? I am speaking collectively for man kind and have no interest on running a retrospective or a prospective study on either, I suspect most people can't recognize the object of their adoration-- the point is as plain as the statement. everyone transfers their instincts to some ideal they have established for themselves--
on a separate and entirely unrelated note-- I don't understand why the term 'Darwinists' bothers you so? I thought it very apropos to describe a specific subset of evolutionists .. has the term itself evolved to something politically incorrect that the original post has to be disqualified on that basis alone?
all the best
Last edited by جوري; 11-18-2010 at 02:14 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I'm still not even 100% on what the word means anyway, except that the "Darwinists" themselves do find it silly and never call each other that. What "subset of evolutionists" are they?
If you would be so kind. Thanks.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
I suspect most people can't recognize the object of their adoration-- the point is as plain as the statement. everyone transfers their instincts to some ideal they have established for themselves.
No, I'm afraid I don't quite grasp that either. "Transfers their instincts"??
Last edited by IAmZamzam; 11-18-2010 at 02:30 AM.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
and these darwinists even had a "counter argument" to that. What was it? it was that "young men are idiots and hence of course they will believe in God." "Of course children will believe in God, you cant expect rational and critical thinking at that stage of life." "The fact that children by default believe in God actually proves that its stupid to believe in God as children are not so smart." LOOOL
Help me to escape from this existence
I yearn for an answer... can you help me?
I'm drowning in a sea of abused visions and shattered dreams
In somnolent illusion... I'm paralyzed
No, I'm afraid I don't quite grasp that either. "Transfers their instincts"??
It seems that some people think Darwin has taken away the need for God, this might appear to make Darwin more powerful than God. I can see a transfer of instincts.
A belated Eid Mubarik to you all,
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Great Post Jazaka Allah khyran and aboard.. monumental first effort...
Yup... monumental plagiarism of the first order I don't really have to tell you who wrote it, do I?
Also a monumental strawman also of course, typical Harun Yahya. There is no 'deception' as nobody (except that well known science journal the Financial Times, possibly) is actually making the claim he is attacking.
Yup... monumental plagiarism of the first order I don't really have to tell you who wrote it, do I?
I didn't claim he wrote it, I appreciated that his first post here was a monumental one.. which it is!
Also a monumental strawman also of course, typical Harun Yahya. There is no 'deception' as nobody (except that well known science journal the Financial Times, possibly) is actually making the claim he is attacking.
One claim requires one refutation.. however that is the mindset of many.. I'd like for once when a topic of this nature is raised for the actual science to be discussed not the characters involved!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I still don't understand what a transfer of instincts is. Are you talking about the defense mechanism of intellectualization, wherein something from the id is transferred into the ego to release its burden (or something like that)?
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
I still don't understand what a transfer of instincts is. Are you talking about the defense mechanism of intellectualization, wherein something from the id is transferred into the ego to release its burden (or something like that)?
transference and counter-transference aren't defense mechanisms!.. be that as it may since we are all born with the instinct (yes instinct) to worship and find a reason for our existence, those who don't channel that instinctive need to fulfill their spiritual needs, find another thing to worship on a subconscious level. The same way you find on a subconscious or at times conscious ways to fulfill your instincts that go unfulfilled.. for instance you are hungry and can't find food so you might do something substitutive to numb that drive or take care of it by some other means available.. the same with the instinct to find and worship our creator those who don't fulfill that basic need channel that instinct toward something else, they worship money, or themselves, or mountain climbing or work or women, or the beaches of Chile or whatever.. instead of fulfilling the spiritual need in them that will not be denied they simply find some other portal!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
aboard.. monumental first effort...
I don't really have to tell you who wrote it, do I?
Hide
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks